ML15112A311
| ML15112A311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1998 |
| From: | Joseph Sebrosky NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mccollum W DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811240164 | |
| Download: ML15112A311 (5) | |
Text
November 18, 1998 Mr. William R. McCollum, Jr.
Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Site Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Seneca, SC 29679
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW OF THE OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION
Dear Mr. McCollum:
By letter dated July 6, 1998, Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submitted for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) review an application pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating licenses for the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3. Exhibit A to the application is the Oconee Nuclear Station License Renewal Technical Information Report (OLRP-1001), which contains the technical information required by 10 CFR Part 54. The NRC staff is reviewing the information contained in OLRP-1001 and has identified, in the enclosure, areas where additional information is needed to complete its review. Specifically, the enclosed questions are from the Materials and Chemical Engineering Branch regarding Section 3.7.2 of OLRP-1001. In addition, another question for section 4.21 is enclosed as well as some general questions.
Please provide a schedule by letter, electronic mail, or telephonically for the submittal of your responses within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Additionally, the staff would be willing to meet with Duke prior to the submittal of the responses to provide clarifications of the staffs requests for additional information.
Sincerely, Joseph M. Sebrosky, Project Manager 9811240164 981118
~-
License Renewal Project Directorate PDR ADOCK 05000269 Division of Reactor Program Management P
PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page DOCUMENTNAME:G:\\SEBROSKY\\RAI7.WPD OFFICE LA PM:PDLR PDLR:D,4 NAME LBerry JSebrosky:s ClGrimecLO DATE 11/)1/98 11/1 /98 11 / I98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Hard copy pocket File PUBLIC PDLR RF M. EI-Zeftawy, ACRS T2E26 F. Miraglia J. Roe D. Matthews C. Grimes T. Essig G. Lainas J. Strosnider G. Bagchi H. Brammer T. Hiltz G. Holahan S. Newberry C. Gratton L. Spessard R. Correia R. Latta J. Peralta J. Moore R. Weisman M. Zobler E. Hackett A. Murphy T. Martin D. Martin W. McDowell S. Droggitis PDLR Staff M. Banic G. Hornseth H. Berkow D. LaBarge L. Plisco C. Ogle R. Trojanowski M. Scoff C. Julian R. Architzel J. Wilson R. Wessman E. Sullivan R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI
Oconee Nuclear Station (License Renewal) cc:
Paul R. Newton, Esquire Duke Energy Corporation Mr. J. E. Burchfield 422 South Church Street Compliance Manager Mail Stop PB-05E Duke Energy Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Anne W. Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Mr. Rick N. Edwards Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Framatome Technologies Suite 525 L. A. Keller 1700 Rockville Pike Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Manager, LIS Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Senior Resident Inspector Environment, Health, and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Natural Resources 7812B Rochester Highway 3825 Barrett Drive Seneca, South Carolina 29672 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II Gregory D. Robison U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy Corporation Atlanta Federal Center Mail Stop EC-12R 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 P. 0. Box 1006 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Virgil R. Autry, Director Robert L. Gill, Jr' Division of Radioactive Waste Management Duke Energy Corporation Bureau of Land and Waste Management Mail Stop EC-12R Department of Health and P. 0. Box 1006 Environmental Control Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 2600 Bull Street RLGILL@DUKE-ENERGY.COM Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Douglas J. Walters County Supervisor of Oconee County Nuclear Energy Institute Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 1776 1 Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition DJW@NEI.ORG P. 0. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION. EXHIBIT A OLRP-1001 Section No.
3.7.2 Applicable Aging Effects for Structural Components 3.7.2-1 Microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC), fouling, and pitting are discussed as a potential aging effect. However, there does not appear to be information on an applicable aging management program. Please provide information on how MIC, fouling, and pitting will be managed.
4.21 Piping Erosion/Corrosion Program 4.21-6 Section 4.21 of the application describes the piping erosion/corrosion program and indicates that corrective actions are taken prior to the piping reaching the "allowable minimum wall thickness." Please discuss whether piping with a pipe wall thinned locally to this minimum thickness could withstand all licensing basis loads, including bending. Also discuss the evaluation for fittings, such as elbows, tees, reducers, and fabricated branch connections.
General Questions G-1 Has Duke Energy committed to extending 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B requirements for "corrective actions," "confirmation process," and "administrative controls" to cover non safety-related structures and components subject to aging management review (AMR)?
If not, what is Duke Power using to address these required elements of a program for non-safety related structures and components requiring an aging management review.
G-2 Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.3.8 all describe new one time inspection programs to verify the presence or absence of various degradation mechanisms specific to certain components. These sections all deal with time dependent mechanisms. However, given that Oconee has been operating for approximately 24 years, discuss the rationale for delaying these inspections to the time period between the issuance of a license extension and the expiration of the existing license. The staff recognizes the financial constraints in the utility business, however, given some of the mechanisms specified, it is not clear why some programs are not advanced in schedule. What is the rationale for the schedule of the programs? Is there a plan for schedule or priority ranking among these various inspection programs? What is the rationale for this ranking?
G-3 Are there any parts of the systems, structures and components that are inaccessible for inspection? If so, describe what aging management program will be relied upon to maintain the integrity of the inaccessible areas. If the aging management program for the inaccessible areas is an evaluation of the acceptability of inaccessible areas based.
on conditions found in surrounding accessible areas, please provide information to show that conditions would exist in accessible areas that would indicate the presence of, or result in degradation to such inaccessible areas. If different aging effects or aging Enclosure
2 management techniques are needed for the inaccessible areas, please provide a summary to address the following elements for the inaccessible areas: (a) Preventive actions that will mitigate or prevent aging degradation; (b) Parameters monitored or inspected relative to degradation of specific structure and component intended functions; (c) Detection of aging effects before loss of structure and component intended functions; (d) Monitoring, trending, inspection, testing frequency, and sample size to ensure timely detection of aging effects and corrective actions; (e) Acceptance criteria to ensure structure and component intended functions; and (f) Operating experience that provides objective evidence to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed.